Talk to me come playoff time and I think you'll see what I'm talking about, but its pointless to debate when all you do is look at the regular season stats and think it actually matters in the playoffs. It doesn't.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that L.A. beat San Antonio, 4-1, last year, in the playoffs? You seem to have skipped that...

Last edited by Evenflow8112 on Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:41 pm

DunkinDan89

Director

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:31 pmPosts: 1130

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

I said that in the very beginning, I think it was either my first or second post in this section of the forum. In my opinion however, the Barry no-foul in Game 4, add in Manu's injury, it was a lopsided series to begin with. When healthy, the Spurs are just as good as the Lakers (and as they proved tonight, they're STILL right up there with them even without their star shooting guard). You keep on throwing these regular season stats (and preseason..."sort of") out that mean nothing in the playoffs, when the whole season basically stars over again.

Do you ackowledge that the Spurs have not suffered a first round exit in almost a decade when that was to the Phoenix Suns, ironically when Tim Duncan's season was cut short due to a knee injury?

Do you REALLY think that a Nuggets team that has bowed out to the Spurs everytime they go head-to-head in the first round has a shot of upsetting a four time championship winner?

This is a great argument. I'm with Dunkin Dan on this one. The NBA regular season is meaningless once the playoffs start. Countless NBA stars and coaches have even said so. A playoff seasoned team like the Spurs doesn't need homecourt advantage to win a playoff series. They went on the road, just last year, and won a Game 7 in New Orleans. The Hornets were playing out of their minds then, and haven't come close to playing that well all year. If any team is mentally tough enough to go into L.A. and win a game or 2, it's the Spurs. I don't see how Evenflow can consider the Hornets or Rockets as serious threats to the Spurs in a playoff series. The Jazz are playing amazingly right now, but that's not going to last for another month and a half and into the playoffs. Teams just don't play that well for that long. The Jazz are really good, but right now are no better than the 3rd best team in the conference, even while on this hot streak.

Let's not forget that once the playoffs start, the NBA becomes a half court game, which hugely favors a team like the Spurs. That's why defense and a great big men are time-tested keys to championships. Tim Duncan is the best power forward of all time, and one of the best big men of all time. He's virtually unstoppable in the playoffs, and if they can get Manu and Parker both healthy, they are ridiculously tough to beat. The Lakers are the favorites, but I would never, ever count the Spurs out, especially right now when they know the regular season doesn't mean much, they've been hurt most of the year, and still sit at #2 in the West. Are they old? Yes. Are they in decline? Perhaps. Are they not legit championship contenders? No chance in hell.

Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:20 am

Evenflow8112

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

PeachyPete wrote:

I don't see how Evenflow can consider the Hornets or Rockets as serious threats to the Spurs in a playoff series. The Jazz are playing amazingly right now, but that's not going to last for another month and a half and into the playoffs. Teams just don't play that well for that long. The Jazz are really good, but right now are no better than the 3rd best team in the conference, even while on this hot streak.

In response, I don't know how I can expect San Antonio to all of a sudden be healthy over this stretch of time and into the playoffs. If you think my first round comment is ridicuolous fine, but everything has an ending, and the Spurs could find it sooner than later. Their peak, as far as I'm concerned, is a loss to the Lakers, assuming they don't face the Jazz first, who have a great chance at beating them. Their championship possibilities are in my mind completely nonexistant. They will likely grind almost any series to seven games with anyone except L.A. (who could finish it in five), and I seriously don't think they have the kind of endurance this season to do that and actually end up winning the championship. I also think that New Orleans and Houston could be legit threats. I know it's 'unproven', but that's how legacies start, too. Tim Duncan entered the league with a championship?

Even if you don't buy my argument about San Antonio in decline, I don't know how you can't be scared when Manu Ginobli is close to breaking his personal record by 10 games (he has now been out 26 games), with the return still a ways off. Frankly, L.A. and Boston are the only teams I can see being severely dangerous in the playoffs without all of thier starters playing every game (I would say, the Cavs, too, but who cares if Wallace plays anyhow?). Can San Antonio cover that consistently? I'm skeptical.

P.S. - It's worth mentioing that the Nuggets have never played San Antonio in the playoffs with Billups in the lineup, who, upon reflection, is a proven playoff player and champion, and represents a difference from playing the Nuggets with Iverson. Just saying, don't count them out. I they are cold right now, well, as you said for the Jazz, this doesn't have to last come postseason time.

Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:12 pm

PeachyPete

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Evenflow8112 wrote:

I also think that New Orleans and Houston could be legit threats. I know it's 'unproven', but that's how legacies start, too. Tim Duncan entered the league with a championship?

P.S. - It's worth mentioing that the Nuggets have never played San Antonio in the playoffs with Billups in the lineup, who, upon reflection, is a proven playoff player and champion, and represents a difference from playing the Nuggets with Iverson. Just saying, don't count them out. I they are cold right now, well, as you said for the Jazz, this doesn't have to last come postseason time.

You're right Duncan didn't enter the league with a title. He also didn't consistently lose in the first round like Houston and Denver have for most of this decade. Neither of those teams has what it takes to get over the hump. Houston is actually better off without McGrady, but they aren't anything close to a playoff contender. Should they win a first round series, it would be seen as a pretty significant upset, especially against the Spurs. As for Denver, they are much better off with Billups, who, at this point, is a much more effective player than AI. It's not even close. That said, they aren't making any noise in the playoffs either. Their ceiling? the same as Houston's, a first round upset and a second round loss. That's it. Neither of those teams is as good as the Lakers or Spurs, one of which they will play in the first or second round. I'll entertain the thought of Utah and possibly New Orleans (assuming they get back to playing like they were at this time last season) upsetting the Spurs, but not Houston or Denver. No way, no how.

Houston has no leadership whatsoever to succeed in the playoffs. Who is going to get their crunch time baskets? Yao Ming? Ron Artest? Please. They good defense, but they don't have a go-to guy and they don't have a leader. Both are musts in the playoffs.

Denver is a jump shooting team. Billups, Melo, and Smith are their most effective offensive weapons, and they all rely on their jumpers. Jump shooting teams just don't usually win in the playoffs. You need some sort of post presence. Nene is having a good year.....for Nene. Overall, they don't have what it takes down low to win against the Lakers, Spurs, and Jazz of the world.

Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:39 pm

Evenflow8112

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Alright, I think we're going down ten different paths here, and I realize some of that is my fault. Aside from the Spurs winning/losing in the first round, the Nuggets having a shot at winning in the playoffs, and New Orlean's viability as contenders, overall my argument with Dunkin Dan boils down to this; he thinks the Spurs will win the title, and I am saying that they will not beat L.A., they will not get to the championship, and that their ceiling is less winning the series than it is taking the Lakers to more than 5 games. With the exception of one series, the Lakers dominate the Spurs in the postseason, including beating them 4-0 en route to the finals in 2000, 4-1 en route to the finals in 2001, 4-3 en route to the finals in 2004, and last year, 4-1 en route to the finals. I don't pick the Lakers to beat Boston (an argument for another day), but I say L.A. makes the finals, next to indefinitely.

Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:48 pm

DunkinDan89

Director

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:31 pmPosts: 1130

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Evenflow8112 wrote:

Alright, I think we're going down ten different paths here, and I realize some of that is my fault. Aside from the Spurs winning/losing in the first round, the Nuggets having a shot at winning in the playoffs, and New Orlean's viability as contenders, overall my argument with Dunkin Dan boils down to this; he thinks the Spurs will win the title, and I am saying that they will not beat L.A., they will not get to the championship, and that their ceiling is less winning the series than it is taking the Lakers to more than 5 games. With the exception of one series, the Lakers dominate the Spurs in the postseason, including beating them 4-0 en route to the finals in 2000, 4-1 en route to the finals in 2001, 4-3 en route to the finals in 2004, and last year, 4-1 en route to the finals. I don't pick the Lakers to beat Boston (an argument for another day), but I say L.A. makes the finals, next to indefinitely.

Nice twisting of my words, but sadly your mistaken. Where did I say once, ONCE, in this argument that I thought "the Spurs were going to win the championship this year". Where did I say that? All I said is that the media is forgetting about this team. The Lakers DOMINATE the Spurs in the postseason? Yeah, alright. Yes they've won more series, but guess who swept the other team in the playoffs when these two went head-to-head. The Spurs! Back in '99 when the Lakers had Shaq-Kobe the Spurs swept the Lakers 4-0 EN ROUTE to their first title. In 2003, the Spurs won the series against the Lakers 4-2, with a commanding, butt-kicking Game 6 that saw the Lakers get down by 30 points and forcing Kobe Bryant to tears (he was literally crying like the baby he is). All I said is that the media is forgetting about the Spurs, and buying into the teams with hype, like yourself. You say Houston has a good chance? Houston hasn't gotten out of the first round in God knows how long. New Orleans has been so-so this year and lost to the Spurs in the second round last year. I just find it utterly hilarious you actually think the Spurs are going to even potentially lose in the first round. To me, it's not even a concern, they are still one of the best teams in the league (records will back me up as well here), with the best big man to ever play the game still leading the charge. When healthy, I think the Spurs have a good chance against the Lakers. I never said they would defeat the Lakers, right now I'm not sure because I need to see how they do healthy, all I'm saying is that don't cast them off as some "broken down old man" of a team, because many like you have made that claim, sadly you have zero evidence to prove that's a valid one.

Nice twisting of my words, but sadly your mistaken. Where did I say once, ONCE, in this argument that I thought "the Spurs were going to win the championship this year". Where did I say that?

"They've won during every odd year since '03, and they won before that in '99. The "they're getting old" argument has been used like for the past three years though, so until it proves true that they don't win on an odd year, I'm not buying it."

What is any reasonable person supposed to deduct from that statement? That also, by the way, negates your point about mentioning 'since 2003' when I mentioned their failing to win in 2001, because you end up contradicting yourself. But whatevs.

To clean up things a bit: - I never called them a 'broken down old man' team. Don't even attach me to this. I said they were injury-plagued, which is accurate. I never used this phrase.- I said 'They might not make it past their first series.' That's as valid as anything to say, since as you have noted so many times like a 'broken old record', nothing has been proven wrong yet. Even if a team wins every year, they still aren't a lock to do anything. The Patriots won three straight Super Bowls, and lost the fourth, on their, and then missed the playoffs the next year.

Said Dunkin Dan: 'New Orleans has been in a weird funk and I have concerns about their chemistry seeing they failed trying to trade Chandler away.'Says Phil: They are 9-1 since Chandler returned, and the trade refusal by Oklahoma City has increased their urgency to win a title, as they were pigeon-holed a playoff 'hopeless' in the days before Chandler's trade was reneged. It's a miraculous spark, much like when McNabb got benched last NFL season and then started to actually play games like they still count. They are thankful and rejuvenated to have their teammate back, as well as determined. If their regular season still won't be as impressive as last year's, you would have to admit that by your logic it wouldn't matter. I'm not sure how a seven-game playoff loss convinces you that they aren't a good match for the Spurs; that tells me they can hang with them. The Spurs, I should add, are not as healthy as they were last year, and perhaps not as good, either. I don't see how New Orleans is a bad choice come playoff time.

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:44 pm

DunkinDan89

Director

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:31 pmPosts: 1130

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Evenflow8112 wrote:

DunkinDan89 wrote:

Nice twisting of my words, but sadly your mistaken. Where did I say once, ONCE, in this argument that I thought "the Spurs were going to win the championship this year". Where did I say that?

"They've won during every odd year since '03, and they won before that in '99. The "they're getting old" argument has been used like for the past three years though, so until it proves true that they don't win on an odd year, I'm not buying it."

What is any reasonable person supposed to deduct from that statement? That also, by the way, negates your point about mentioning 'since 2003' when I mentioned their failing to win in 2001, because you end up contradicting yourself. But whatevs.

To clean up things a bit: - I never called them a 'broken down old man' team. Don't even attach me to this. I said they were injury-plagued, which is accurate. I never used this phrase.- I said 'They might not make it past their first series.' That's as valid as anything to say, since as you have noted so many times like a 'broken old record', nothing has been proven wrong yet. Even if a team wins every year, they still aren't a lock to do anything. The Patriots won three straight Super Bowls, and lost the fourth, on their, and then missed the playoffs the next year.

Said Dunkin Dan: 'New Orleans has been in a weird funk and I have concerns about their chemistry seeing they failed trying to trade Chandler away.'Says Phil: They are 9-1 since Chandler returned, and the trade refusal by Oklahoma City has increased their urgency to win a title, as they were pigeon-holed a playoff 'hopeless' in the days before Chandler's trade was reneged. It's a miraculous spark, much like when McNabb got benched last NFL season and then started to actually play games like they still count. They are thankful and rejuvenated to have their teammate back, as well as determined. If their regular season still won't be as impressive as last year's, you would have to admit that by your logic it wouldn't matter. I'm not sure how a seven-game playoff loss convinces you that they aren't a good match for the Spurs; that tells me they can hang with them. The Spurs, I should add, are not as healthy as they were last year, and perhaps not as good, either. I don't see how New Orleans is a bad choice come playoff time.

You are a very confused individual.

First off, I never said the Spurs would win this year. I simply said that they've established a pattern of winning every odd year (except 2001) for the past decade. I didn't contradict myself because I never said the Spurs WOULD win the title this year. Not once. I also said they've won every odd year SINCE 2003, but you are still not understanding this and keep on saying "your argument includes 2001 when they didn't win", again, I said no such thing. You have yet to prove that wrong.

I never said you called them a "broken down old man" of a team, that's a phrase I used to describe how you seemed to be comparing them too. They've been injured, but I keep telling you, I've been watching this team for 14 years, and this is how they usually are. They've always been a team with a few young guys surrounded by veterans (Parker most notably now, but back in the day when Timmy was young, you had guys like Jaren Jackson, Mario Ellie, Avery Johnson, etc...). This is what makes them special. They're a tough team, they have been for the past 14 years I've rooted for them, and they suffer tough injuries throughout the year (I'll say it again, seeing you must not of read it the first time, TIM DUNCAN got hurt in 2005, ironically around the same time Manu suffered his injury this year. What happened? The Spurs won the title that year).

Your New Orleans argument is purely based on hype. Yes they've been good LATELY, but what happened to not having Chandler before his injury? He still played through a portion of the beginning of the season. Your acting like before the Chandler trade-rejection, New Orleans was struggling to even make the playoffs. Not true. They were still a playoff team, just not at the high-caliber seed they're looking at now. You assume too much to. Where did I say they were never a good opponent for the Spurs? I just listed facts, until they beat the Spurs in a seven game series, I'm not buying into their hype. They lost last year, so until they prove they can get past the Spurs, I'm still picking San Antonio.

Oh, by the way, if we were going by your regular season "stats", San Antonio beat Houston tonight (with Drew Gooden, who you thought was pointless of me to throw into the argument, chipping in 13 points and 4 boards off the bench), making them 10-10 or whatever. Houston is another team I think your caught way too much in the "hype" of. Right now San Antonio and the Lakers are the best two teams in the West. Until I see two other teams representing in the West in the conference Finals, I'm going to stick to that belief.

Your New Orleans argument is purely based on hype. Yes they've been good LATELY, but what happened to not having Chandler before his injury? He still played through a portion of the beginning of the season. Your acting like before the Chandler trade-rejection, New Orleans was struggling to even make the playoffs. Not true. They were still a playoff team, just not at the high-caliber seed they're looking at now. You assume too much to. Where did I say they were never a good opponent for the Spurs? I just listed facts, until they beat the Spurs in a seven game series, I'm not buying into their hype. They lost last year, so until they prove they can get past the Spurs, I'm still picking San Antonio.

Oh, by the way, if we were going by your regular season "stats", San Antonio beat Houston tonight (with Drew Gooden, who you thought was pointless of me to throw into the argument, chipping in 13 points and 4 boards off the bench), making them 10-10 or whatever. Houston is another team I think your caught way too much in the "hype" of. Right now San Antonio and the Lakers are the best two teams in the West. Until I see two other teams representing in the West in the conference Finals, I'm going to stick to that belief.

I never said any of that about New Orleans, more or less I meant that, without Chandler, they couldn't be dangerous come playoff time - thus playoff 'hopeless'. You said they were in a 'weird funk', not I, so I don't see how I'm the one who's all of a sudden being down on New Orleans here.

As for the Rockets, well, we'll see, a win is a win, but it wasn't anything that I would base a playoffs bet on, either.

Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:08 am

Evenflow8112

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

So, Houston defeats New Orleans... and San Antonio chokes up a game to the Thunder. Ouch. San Antonio's lead in the West is now down to 1 1/2 games. Utah's the new #7 seed, and New Orleans is at #6 waiting for #3, which could be San Antonio soon. I see cracks forming.

Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:50 pm

PeachyPete

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

You guys have to make some sort of bet on the Spurs first round series. This has to happen. All of this shit talking and debating is entertaining as hell. For the record, I don't think the Spurs will beat the Lakers, but I think they are the only team in the West with a legit shot to do so.

The inevitable Cleveland-Boston series is what I'm most looking forward to though. As a Wizards fan I have to grasp that Quenn James doesn't win a title, so rooting against him is all I can do next month. Although, the Eastern Conference Finals are the first series that they could potentially lose, which will most likely be against Boston, so that's where I'll start rooting hard against him.

Also, as of today, who is MVP? I've always found the MVP debate fascinating. Is it the best player in the league (Lebron)? Or is it the guy who means the most to his team (maybe Lebron, maybe Wade)? It's pretty much a 3 horse race at this point between Lebron, Kobe, and Wade. As much as it pains me, I'd have to go with Bron Bron this year. The guy has been unbelieveable.

Also, Evenflow, who is your team? If you said so earlier in the thread, I apologize.

Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:20 am

Evenflow8112

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Well, in a perfect world, I would be a Nets fan. I still think that trio of Kenyon Kartin, Richard Jefferson, and Jason Kidd was the definitive East team of the first half of the decade. They were simply magical. Even in one of their weaker years they forced an Eastern Conference title game 7 with Detroit, the year Detroit won the championship, nonetheless. Now they're a mess, even if they have a shot at the playoffs, I don't see them going far. I always liked te Cetics, too, and I was happy to see them make a turn-around, so I root for them most this year. They are also the least gimmicky team in the playoff race right now, in my view, so I support them (I will explain this if necessary). I frankly loathe the Lakers, let's just get that one out of the way. I almost wish that Dunkin'darrell or Dunkinghanistan or whatever guy's Spurs would take them out.

As for MVP, well, LeBron wins, because his team is #1 in the league (statistically), he is playing at an extremely high level, and although Wade is perhaps the best pure player of the last two months, I still need to se the Heat get into a higher seed to be convinced, and they have next to no shot (possibly technically no shot, I'm not sure). People overrated the Cavs, in my opinion, so this helps strengthen his case. They are maybe in the top 8 of the Eastern playoff race without him (ceiling at maybe the six-seed). I still don't think they have the horses for the Celtics, who are a true team, however, especially if they can't beat them without Garnett playing. That made it one-and-done for me. Don't give me the 'home team' thing - you should win that game 9 out of 10 times, if you're a serious threat. Ooprs, Cleveland. I guess you're not serious. Enjoy the seats to the Lakes - Celtics Finals (again).

Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:15 pm

Trevor

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Evenflow8112 wrote:

Well, in a perfect world, I would be a Nets fan. I still think that trio of Kenyon Kartin, Richard Jefferson, and Jason Kidd was the definitive East team of the first half of the decade. They were simply magical. Even in one of their weaker years they forced an Eastern Conference title game 7 with Detroit, the year Detroit won the championship, nonetheless. Now they're a mess, even if they have a shot at the playoffs, I don't see them going far. I always liked te Cetics, too, and I was happy to see them make a turn-around, so I root for them most this year. They are also the least gimmicky team in the playoff race right now, in my view, so I support them (I will explain this if necessary). I frankly loathe the Lakers, let's just get that one out of the way. I almost wish that Dunkin'darrell or Dunkinghanistan or whatever guy's Spurs would take them out.

As for MVP, well, LeBron wins, because his team is #1 in the league (statistically), he is playing at an extremely high level, and although Wade is perhaps the best pure player of the last two months, I still need to se the Heat get into a higher seed to be convinced, and they have next to no shot (possibly technically no shot, I'm not sure). People overrated the Cavs, in my opinion, so this helps strengthen his case. They are maybe in the top 8 of the Eastern playoff race without him (ceiling at maybe the six-seed). I still don't think they have the horses for the Celtics, who are a true team, however, especially if they can't beat them without Garnett playing. That made it one-and-done for me. Don't give me the 'home team' thing - you should win that game 9 out of 10 times, if you're a serious threat. Ooprs, Cleveland. I guess you're not serious. Enjoy the seats to the Lakes - Celtics Finals (again).

Doesn't that matter? At this rate, Cleveland will have home-court advantage throughout the playoffs, and they have lost exactly ONE game at home all season.That is not a mere home court "advantage," that is absolute domination. Maybe they should have beat the Celtics at Boston, but should the Celtics have beaten the Cavs in Cleveland? I think the Cavs will take any series on their way to the finals without dropping a home game.

Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:45 pm

PeachyPete

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Trevor wrote:

Evenflow8112 wrote:

Well, in a perfect world, I would be a Nets fan. I still think that trio of Kenyon Kartin, Richard Jefferson, and Jason Kidd was the definitive East team of the first half of the decade. They were simply magical. Even in one of their weaker years they forced an Eastern Conference title game 7 with Detroit, the year Detroit won the championship, nonetheless. Now they're a mess, even if they have a shot at the playoffs, I don't see them going far. I always liked te Cetics, too, and I was happy to see them make a turn-around, so I root for them most this year. They are also the least gimmicky team in the playoff race right now, in my view, so I support them (I will explain this if necessary). I frankly loathe the Lakers, let's just get that one out of the way. I almost wish that Dunkin'darrell or Dunkinghanistan or whatever guy's Spurs would take them out.

As for MVP, well, LeBron wins, because his team is #1 in the league (statistically), he is playing at an extremely high level, and although Wade is perhaps the best pure player of the last two months, I still need to se the Heat get into a higher seed to be convinced, and they have next to no shot (possibly technically no shot, I'm not sure). People overrated the Cavs, in my opinion, so this helps strengthen his case. They are maybe in the top 8 of the Eastern playoff race without him (ceiling at maybe the six-seed). I still don't think they have the horses for the Celtics, who are a true team, however, especially if they can't beat them without Garnett playing. That made it one-and-done for me. Don't give me the 'home team' thing - you should win that game 9 out of 10 times, if you're a serious threat. Ooprs, Cleveland. I guess you're not serious. Enjoy the seats to the Lakes - Celtics Finals (again).

Doesn't that matter? At this rate, Cleveland will have home-court advantage throughout the playoffs, and they have lost exactly ONE game at home all season.That is not a mere home court "advantage," that is absolute domination. Maybe they should have beat the Celtics at Boston, but should the Celtics have beaten the Cavs in Cleveland? I think the Cavs will take any series on their way to the finals without dropping a home game.

Those Nets teams were classic. They were Kidd at his finest with the perfect complimentary guys in Jefferson and Martin. I, too, think the C's are the best of the bunch and hate the Lakers. L.A. doesn't have lakes, change your name retards.

As for Trevor, the answer to your question is no. The Celtics didn't have to beat Cleveland anywhere, they have already done that. Cleveland needed to prove to themselves that they could beat Boston. They needed it more than the C's. Boston doesn't need home court to win a playoff series. They coasted through the East last year by winning only at home. They know how to win in the playoffs and in close games. Cleveland is going to lose a home playoff game this year, I'm willing to bet anything on that. The best teams ever don't go undefeated at home in the playoffs, and Cleveland isn't close to that category. The only way the Lebron's beat the C's is if the refs let Lebron shoot 20 FTs a game, which is a distinct possibility. Need proof? See Wade, Dwayne in the 2006 Finals.

Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:36 pm

Evenflow8112

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Trevor wrote:

Evenflow8112 wrote:

Well, in a perfect world, I would be a Nets fan. I still think that trio of Kenyon Kartin, Richard Jefferson, and Jason Kidd was the definitive East team of the first half of the decade. They were simply magical. Even in one of their weaker years they forced an Eastern Conference title game 7 with Detroit, the year Detroit won the championship, nonetheless. Now they're a mess, even if they have a shot at the playoffs, I don't see them going far. I always liked te Cetics, too, and I was happy to see them make a turn-around, so I root for them most this year. They are also the least gimmicky team in the playoff race right now, in my view, so I support them (I will explain this if necessary). I frankly loathe the Lakers, let's just get that one out of the way. I almost wish that Dunkin'darrell or Dunkinghanistan or whatever guy's Spurs would take them out.

As for MVP, well, LeBron wins, because his team is #1 in the league (statistically), he is playing at an extremely high level, and although Wade is perhaps the best pure player of the last two months, I still need to se the Heat get into a higher seed to be convinced, and they have next to no shot (possibly technically no shot, I'm not sure). People overrated the Cavs, in my opinion, so this helps strengthen his case. They are maybe in the top 8 of the Eastern playoff race without him (ceiling at maybe the six-seed). I still don't think they have the horses for the Celtics, who are a true team, however, especially if they can't beat them without Garnett playing. That made it one-and-done for me. Don't give me the 'home team' thing - you should win that game 9 out of 10 times, if you're a serious threat. Ooprs, Cleveland. I guess you're not serious. Enjoy the seats to the Lakes - Celtics Finals (again).

Doesn't that matter? At this rate, Cleveland will have home-court advantage throughout the playoffs, and they have lost exactly ONE game at home all season.That is not a mere home court "advantage," that is absolute domination. Maybe they should have beat the Celtics at Boston, but should the Celtics have beaten the Cavs in Cleveland? I think the Cavs will take any series on their way to the finals without dropping a home game.

I hate to sound like Munchkin Dan, but the playoffs are a different breed of game. People may buy the hype of the home team, and the Cavs' home record is especially impressive, but surmountable, and it makes you wonder what kind of (relative) deficiencies they have on the road to have that kind of home record and having JUST gotten the league's best record.

I may sound overt here, but that game the Cavs played against the Celts, it wasn't close. Not remotely. The gap of ten points was maintained nearly the entire second half. This is embarassing. And if I mention that Garnett isn't there, it's because it is truly ridiculous that Boston could dominate any game on any court so fully with literally an arm cut off. Say what you will about Ginobli's injury hurting the Spurs, Garnett's a former MVP. How much damage is acceptable when a team loses a player like Garnett? I'd say it's amazing that the Celtics have still played well and even nearly erased a 20 point deificit against a very good Orlando team. Imagine if, proportionately, Dwight Howard was injured? I think (2% short of 100) the Magic would be in the kind of funk you only hear about in history books Hell, Jameer Nelson's injury has already cost them their title shot, depending on who you ask. This is an overrated team who peaked their season by beating the Lakers a few months ago, and have instead become a team with alot of wins, but no postseason future.

Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:47 pm

Trevor

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Of course the playoffs are a different breed.And in the past, Lebron has elevated his game and the put the Cavs on his back in the playoffs, even when Cleveland had a mediocre team.So now that they actually have a decent team this year, what makes you think they can't go even further? One regular season loss at Boston? The Celtics have a few other superstars even without Garnett if you didn't notice.Lebron and the Cavs took them to 7 anyway last year, with home court advantage being the difference. I could see you arguing that the Cavs are overrated, etc. etc. if this was an isolated case, but comparing them to past years I have to say that I think they have a good chance at a championship this year.

Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:06 pm

Evenflow8112

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Someone is arguing with me in this thread. What a shock

Trevor wrote:

The Celtics have a few other superstars even without Garnett if you didn't notice.

You know, you're right. They do have an endless well of resources. What a deep team

They just won without Allen, Powe, or Garnett. Miami was without Wade, but my point is; how much of your team do you need to win a game? Boston is shocking me now. This was also the Heat's first OT loss this season.

Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:12 pm

Shade

Re: I Don't Know How Many Basketball Fans We Have Here, But...

Obviously what Boston is doing is impressive, but all of this sort of talk is a bit frivolous to me, since Boston obviously can't win a ring without KG. It's certainly good to know they can play well without him (and perhaps hang in in games when he gets in foul trouble, as has become a distressing trend).

Gotta be honest: It's still a little strange to me that anyone thinks Lebron is clearly better than Kobe. Lebron is still an average shooter at best and no matter what John Hollinger or anyone else tries to tell you, he's still a fairly awful defender (although that tends to be a matter of effort rather than talent). Also, and I know others have made this point, but Lebron wastes a possesion every time he takes a three. He just doesn't have that range. He also seems a tad reluctant to go to the rim lately in close games -- failing to use his physicality, which is his greatest element (people seem to forget that he's a little bigger right now than Karl Malone ever was) -- and he's one of the five fastest players in the game!

By the way, this loss puts the Spurs exactly half a game ahead of the Rockets for #2 in the Western conference. Awe-inspiring, I know. There are 2.5 games between San Antonio and the #7 seed. Just saying.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum